Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that s1 and s2 differ in their essential properties: s1 can survive being flattened while s2, a different statue, cannot—violating Leibniz's Law.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
s1 and s2 may be numerically identical (same clay, same statue) but differ in how we conceptualize or describe them, not in their properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Survival conditions may depend on sortal identity (what kind of thing something is) rather than intrinsic essential properties, so Leibniz's Law doesn't apply.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The apparent difference may reflect de re modal claims that are context-sensitive rather than revealing genuinely distinct essential natures.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If s1 and s2 have different modal properties (one can survive flattening, one cannot), they differ in essential properties by definition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Essential properties are those an object cannot lose without ceasing to exist. Survival conditions are paradigmatic essential properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Leibniz's Law states indistinguishable objects are identical. Different essential properties entail the objects are genuinely distinct.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.